Hi Ismael,
> Can't we work with the log4j community to support the alternative format?
It seems not.
1. Changing the format of current log4j2's Kafka Appender implementation
means causing inconvenience to the existing users by changing API
semantics. (In my opinion, the log4j community did not take the
compatibility with the log4j-appender into account when they developed this
module.)
2. Providing a new implementation (which is compatible with log4j-appender)
alongside with the existing one means there will be two APIs with similar
goals and functionality under the same artifact coordinate of log4j. This
confuses the users.
Either of the approaches above is not feasible to the log4j community.
Moreover, this approach does not resolve the classpath problem; To entirely
remove the log4j 1.x artifact from the classpath, the log4j2 appender
should be released first, since VerifiableLog4jAppender uses it. This means
that the release of Kafka 3.0 depends upon when the log4j community
releases the appender - it is also not feasible for us.
Thanks,
Dongjin
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:20 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Can't we work with the log4j community to support the alternative format?
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 10:54 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > @Ismael
> >
> > As I stated in the KIP (see subsection 2 of 'Motivation'), the log4j
> > community's implementation can't be an alternative for the existing
> > 'log4j-appender' users since their message format is different, breaking
> > the related, already running pipelines.
> >
> > Add to this, the log4j appender can be best maintained when log4j2 and
> > Kafka versions are updated together. (see subsection 1 of 'Motivation'.)
> >
> > @Israel
> >
> > Then, you mean instead of creating a new artifact ('log4j2-appender'),
> just
> > substituting the traditional artifact ('log4j-appender') with a new
> > implementation would be better. Do I understand correctly?
> >
> > After all, one main reason I hurried this proposal is that for the
> > VerifiableLog4jAppender tool, we can't entirely remove log4j 1.x artifact
> > from the classpath - making classpath logic more complex. (see here
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7898/commits/f56f491e68ef2a976c0e3331a48dd881b74a06b3
> > >
> > for KIP-653
> > <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-653%3A+Upgrade+log4j+to+log4j2
> > >
> > and here
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10244/commits/b66fce3d04e005b1eaeae006d78bd8e698f417c6
> > >
> > for KIP-719
> > <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender
> > >
> > .)
> >
> > @Boojapho, @Konstantine
> >
> > Thanks for the voting. Currently:
> >
> > - binding: +1 (Konstantine)
> > - non-binding: +1 (Boojapho)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dongjin
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM Israel Ekpo <israele...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like some of the language in the KIP is suggesting that the
> > Kafka
> > > Dev community is going to provide the log4j2 equivalent and would be
> > > responsible for maintaining it: “ User-interfacing configurations (like
> > > broker logging config), provide additional log4j2-equivalent
> > configuration
> > > with backward compatibility”
> > >
> > > I think the external dependencies should just be used as is from the
> > > original project to minimize overhead. Trying to recreate an external
> > > dependency to provide backward compatibility could end up being a lot
> of
> > > work in the long term.
> > >
> > > Do you think we need to push this to 3.1 to allow more time to think
> > about
> > > it and discuss it further?
> > >
> > > Those are my thoughts at this time
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:04 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm personally not sure about this. We have not maintained the
> existing
> > > > log4j-appender very actively, so are we sure that we can do a better
> > job
> > > > than the log4j community?
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 25, 2021, 6:46 AM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kafka dev,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to kick-off the voting for KIP-719: Add Log4J2 Appender.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-719%3A+Add+Log4J2+Appender
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Dongjin
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Dongjin Lee*
> > > > >
> > > > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr
> > > > > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase:
> > > > https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr
> > > > > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin:
> > > > kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr
> > > > > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck:
> > > > > speakerdeck.com/dongjin
> > > > > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Dongjin Lee*
> >
> > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.*
> >
> >
> >
> > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr
> > <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase:
> https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr
> > <https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin:
> kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr
> > <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck:
> > speakerdeck.com/dongjin
> > <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
> >
>
--
*Dongjin Lee*
*A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.*
*github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr
<https://github.com/dongjinleekr>keybase: https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr
<https://keybase.io/dongjinleekr>linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr
<https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: speakerdeck.com/dongjin
<https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>*
